59 replies to this topic

[Solahma]

Roadkill, on 21 October 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

I believe you are right, but I don't believe it goes for an exact match. As with Elo/PSR, there's a range within which it works to find a (tonnage) match.

My point was more that a "hard limit" of 2 doesn't actually succeed when using smaller groups because each group can have the same 2.

For example, a large Merc Corp could all log on in pairs and take 2 x Stormcrow in each pair. Sure, sometimes they'd end up fighting each other, but sometimes 6 of their pairs would get sent into battle against a 12-man suffering from the "hard limit of 2" rule.

Again, that's too far fetched of a situation to plan for. You don't see it now, you won't see it in the future. Some might try, yes, but they can do that now and I've never seen it happen (at least on purpose).

Another thing to consider is that this isn't about restricting smaller groups. Smaller groups of hodge-podge need the tonnage and chassis advantage if they go up against something like a coordinated 12-man group. I don't see what the problem is for having groups of 2x TBR and 2x SCR. That's fine. You cannot expect that they will be matched, on the same team, with 2 other identical groups. Even if it does. 6x TBR and 6x SCR would be fighting something with similar tonnage. Like 3x 4-mans of 1x DWF, 2x HBR, 1x ACH for example. It's possible to see MANY combinations even in smaller groups.

Edited by Solahma, 21 October 2015 - 08:09 AM.

[KnightKnownasNii]

First, I think its funny how the only people actually enjoying this "New drop limit" issue is coming straight out of the IS mouths. "Oh goody we can run all of our over quirked mechs that we enjoy that are completely more powerful then any clan mech on the field!" Get outta here with that crap. If PGI really cared at all, they would quit listening to trashborn and try listening to real issues. Are the clans powerful? They can be. Are the IS powerful? They can be. But trying to balance something like this is complete non-sense. Group dropping was just fine the way it was. If you want balance, then do this. Put the mechs back together the way they were intended to be, with clans being powerful and IS being, well IS, and make it easy. If your IS, your dropping against Clan. If your Clan, your dropping against IS. 8v12 is all that is needed for balancing. Reason why is because clans were designed to be O.P. so it is in their nature to feel raw power at their fingertips. IS had the ability to hold off the clans in numbers, remember that. Does it mean you will win all the time? No, but when you do it will be glorious. CW is broken so trash that, and dont tell me that this is what they were trying to do with it, cause it wasn't. Make different game modes. Make a mech arena for people that want to earn c-bills quickly. Give this game more life and quick sucking all the enjoyment out of what started out as a good game. I have been playing this game for a while, and I can say that here lately, PGI, you have done nothing but weaken the people that have helped put money in your pockets. I am not saying make this a pay to win game, and anyone who says it is, you are mistaken. But this game is being taken down a road that will soon be unrecoverable. Restricting power and giving power was never the answer. If you want balance PGI, make this game more true to its nature. Read the books, play the table top and do some research. After i post this, you guys can pick it apart however you will because there is to many trolls on these forums anyway, but I won't be back to read any comments. It isn't that I don't want to reply to questions or answer for any comments made, it just isn't worth my time to go through and read all the troll comments and get all puffed over someones internet attitude. But in all seriousness, none of what PGI has done has balanced anything, so how many times do you have to repeat the same mistakes till someone finally calls you all insane?

[PharmEcis]

Just because we currently wear IS tags doesn't mean that is all we do. You are also forgetting that in the group queue, you are not limited to taking on one faction's mechs. You can take whatever the hell you want.

[Solahma]

KnightKnownasNii, on 21 October 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

so how many times do you have to repeat the same mistakes till someone finally calls you all insane?

Wow, this rant was completely off subject. Thanks for the contribution. I read it all and disagree with most, but this thread is about the concept of only allowing 2 of any given chassis. Try to stay on topic.

[Widowmaker1981]

Helps, but doesnt solve it from my perspective.. which having thought about it a lot is this:

Assaults are not worth their tonnage. Im not saying they are bad, at all - simply that they are not enough better than heavies to ever justify their use in a tonnage limited scenario** Either assaults need to be buffed so that a Banshee is actually 50% better than a hellbringer (for example), tonnage limits in group queue need to go away, or.. well if i cant play assaults without feeling like im causing the group to be sub-optimal i simply wont enjoy the game anymore.

Its not that i only play assaults, but they are easily my favourite class of mech, and PGI are effectively telling me i cant play them anymore (don't say solo queue, really.. don't)

**exception being CW, since you can easily fit an assault in a deck, and you dont always use all 4 mechs.. if the 12 man weight limit was 3 times the CW drop limit, i.e.750 tons it wouldn't be a problem

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

PharmEcis, on 21 October 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

snip

This fixes the 10 BJ-1X or the 7 Wangs or the 8 Hellbringer/Swaguar decks by limiting by chassis. And for clans it makes sense because a HBR-Prime, A, or B can all be built identically.

But how would it handle IS mechs and their variants? Would the system treat the WVR-6K the same as the 6R even though they are radically different?

[KnightKnownasNii]

Solahma, on 21 October 2015 - 08:19 AM, said:

Wow, this rant was completely off subject. Thanks for the contribution. I read it all and disagree with most, but this thread is about the concept of only allowing 2 of any given chassis. Try to stay on topic.

Not really, the title is "
Group Queue Tonnage Limits And How To Fix

" and I gave my input. But, I will say this much, you made it easy for me me to point out exactly what I said. Trolls will be trolls. This gives me the ability to easily say, if PGI follows your guidelines, they will most likely lose a lot more players then what they intend on losing. But please, continue on with your sure fixing of an issue that should really just be thrown out point blank period. You can disagree with me all you want to though. The truth is, it doesn't matter. PGI does what PGI wants to do. I saw this game as a much needed mechwarrior game about a tabletop that I enjoyed and still do. But, this has actually turned into something completely different.

[Solahma]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 21 October 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

But how would it handle IS mechs and their variants? Would the system treat the WVR-6K the same as the 6R even though they are radically different?

That's a good point, thanks for bringing it up. The easiest thing to do would be a chassis-wide restriction. So yes, a 6K and 6R would be 2 Wolverines and more could be taken.

The best answer to this would probably be a "per variant" for IS and "per chassis" for clans. Seperate them because of the omnipod difference. That way, you COULD field 2x WVR-6R, 2x WVR-6K, 2x WVR-7K. You could also then field 2x Grid Iron and 2x HBK-4G.

a restriction to 2 of any variant, for IS specifically, does make more sense than per-chassis. Adds even more freedome without abusing certain over-quirked IS mechs.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Solahma, on 21 October 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

That's a good point, thanks for bringing it up. The easiest thing to do would be a chassis-wide restriction. So yes, a 6K and 6R would be 2 Wolverines and more could be taken.

The best answer to this would probably be a "per variant" for IS and "per chassis" for clans. Seperate them because of the omnipod difference. That way, you COULD field 2x WVR-6R, 2x WVR-6K, 2x WVR-7K. You could also then field 2x Grid Iron and 2x HBK-4G.

a restriction to 2 of any variant, for IS specifically, does make more sense than per-chassis. Adds even more freedome without abusing certain over-quirked IS mechs.

Cool, cool. Cause that was one of my concerns. As fun as it was to run bunches and bunches of Wangs and Hunchies last night giving out AC20 enemas, I can see how once the meta-crowd got their feet back under them how we'd start seeing ridiculous meta-decks like 8 Swaguars and 4 Cheetos

Edited by Lord Scarlett Johan, 21 October 2015 - 08:49 AM.

[Solahma]

KnightKnownasNii, on 21 October 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

Not really, the title is "
Group Queue Tonnage Limits And How To Fix

the title isn't the only thing that determines the conversation subject. You don't join a thread, disregard everything that is being discussed, and post a response to the title. It's pointless. We don't care about your broken record response about PGI doing nothing right.

KnightKnownasNii, on 21 October 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

they will most likely lose a lot more players then what they intend on losing.

Or, you know, gain more players because the overall gameplay becomes more balanced because matches are found faster, much less tonnage discrepancy between teams, less abuse of dominant mechs.

KnightKnownasNii, on 21 October 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

I saw this game as a much needed mechwarrior game about a tabletop that I enjoyed and still do. But, this has actually turned into something completely different.

oh, you're one of those. nothing to see here, move along.

[Shae Starfyre]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 21 October 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

Cool, cool. Cause that was one of my concerns. As fun as it was to run bunches and bunches of Wangs and Hunchies last night giving out AC20 enemas, I can see how once the meta-crowd got their feet back under them how we'd start seeing ridiculous meta-decks.

You know what else this simulates is the idea of IS fielding more against Clan; such that you may see more than 2 of the same type of IS Mech but only see 2 of any given Clan Mech.

[Darwins Dog]

Solahma, on 21 October 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

Sure, 4x ACH vs. 2x ACH 2x FS9 isn't much different. But 8x ACH vs. 2x ACH, 2x FS9, 2x RVN, 2x PNT is much different. This is about limiting extremes of large groups. The thing that most people are concerned about.

Also, lol if you think boating streak 2s on IS mechs is anything comparable to streak crows! This isn't about limiting builds, it's about limiting chassis that have an inherent advantage. SCR isn't just good for streaks. It's great at many things, has incredible speed, and has very good hitboxes. Taking a variety of 55 tonners instead of JUST SCR adds diversity. Especially if the quirks on many of these mechs are going to be reduced dramatically. SCR reigns supreme compared to other 55 tonners in the PTS environment

Fair point about lights. It would limit the options of large groups.

I'm not talking about Streak 2s on 55 tonners, but regular SRMs. No where near crows to be sure. You've convinced me that SCR needs a good nerfing, at least.

With the de-quirkening there will be an even greater incentive to use only a few mechs. Limiting chasses will prevent that, but from what you've described the problem is that some mechs are far superior to the others in their tonnage range. They can restrict them, but the perception will be that PGI is making people play bad mechs.

At any rate, I wouldn't complain if PGI took your idea. It would be good for variety at least.

[Almond Brown]

Roadkill, on 21 October 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

I believe you are right, but I don't believe it goes for an exact match. As with Elo/PSR, there's a range within which it works to find a (tonnage) match.

My point was more that a "hard limit" of 2 doesn't actually succeed when using smaller groups because each group can have the same 2.

For example, a large Merc Corp could all log on in pairs and take 2 x Stormcrow in each pair. Sure, sometimes they'd end up fighting each other, but sometimes 6 of their pairs would get sent into battle against a 12-man suffering from the "hard limit of 2" rule.

There is little point in throwing away ideas just because they do not meet a "Perfect" requirement. There will never be a "Perfect" solution but more "diversity" in fielded chassis is hard to see as a bad thing.

Currently, and I have no real idea, of 6 x 2's all getting on the same side when attempting to "Sync Drop" is probably <2%. If any 12 go to a 2 x 6 break down and attempt it over and over and over and over ad nausea, then more power to them.

And honestly, anyone that horny to game a system, then they should be cheered, not jeered. I will continue to play as per the Rules set out and likely get into more FUN games with my friends and have way more FUN than that "Sync Dropping" bunch ever will...

KnightKnownasNii, on 21 October 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

First, I think its funny how the only people actually enjoying this "New drop limit" issue is coming straight out of the IS mouths.

stuff

Dude do your self a favor and join the PTS next time it opens and get a real clue. Quirks are on the way out, the crazy ones for sure.

Edited by Almond Brown, 21 October 2015 - 09:02 AM.

[Solahma]

Darwins Dog, on 21 October 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

You've convinced me that SCR needs a good nerfing, at least.

With the de-quirkening there will be an even greater incentive to use only a few mechs...

...the problem is that some mechs are far superior to the others in their tonnage range.

At any rate, I wouldn't complain if PGI took your idea. It would be good for variety at least.

But that's the thing, MWO has so much variation in skill, builds, tactics, etc. MM still matches good and bad players together and versus one another. If there was no skill variation, sure an obviously stronger chassis should be addressed with changes to that chassis. But there is a huge skill variation in this game. What one player can do with a SCR is much different than another. I don't agree that the answer is to nerf mechs. Quirks help put several mechs on the same level of potential, but then you introduce powercreep.

There is just so much that MWO requires to be balanced, it's impossible to get it all right.

no, I don't believe the right thing to do is to nerf certain mechs.

Darwins Dog, on 21 October 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

They can restrict them, but the perception will be that PGI is making people play bad mechs.

It's a game-wide duplicates restriction. So you could say that it's also limiting the amount of bad mechs a group can bring lol

But yeah, that could be how some would see it. It's partially true.

[SkyHammyr]

Oh. Hello.
I just logged on to like this post.

Now, how do we get Russ & Co to actually consider it?

[Solahma]

SkyHammr, on 21 October 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

Oh. Hello.
I just logged on to like this post.

Now, how do we get Russ & Co to actually consider it?

I have posted the idea to the Patch Feedback and Feature Suggestion sections. Hopefully it's seen somewhere and considered. Nothing else we can really do. Perhaps Kanajashi could get on-board and make a quick feedback video.

Edited by Solahma, 21 October 2015 - 09:19 AM.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 October 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

Helps, but doesnt solve it from my perspective.. which having thought about it a lot is this:

Assaults are not worth their tonnage. Im not saying they are bad, at all - simply that they are not enough better than heavies to ever justify their use in a tonnage limited scenario** Either assaults need to be buffed so that a Banshee is actually 50% better than a hellbringer (for example), tonnage limits in group queue need to go away, or.. well if i cant play assaults without feeling like im causing the group to be sub-optimal i simply wont enjoy the game anymore.

Its not that i only play assaults, but they are easily my favourite class of mech, and PGI are effectively telling me i cant play them anymore (don't say solo queue, really.. don't)

**exception being CW, since you can easily fit an assault in a deck, and you dont always use all 4 mechs.. if the 12 man weight limit was 3 times the CW drop limit, i.e.750 tons it wouldn't be a problem

With the tonnage limits last night I was playing with a friend and we were taking assaults almost all night. I had a Mauler and he had a Zeus.

It doesn't limit you from taking those, just means that as the matchmaker works you'll end up with more light mechs on your side ultimately. While I agree that assault mechs don't feel worth their weight much of the time they can still be worthwhile in the hands of excellent pilots, I'm not one of them in assaults, just like every other mech and pilot combination there is a niche that makes them "good."

Overall the tonnage based teamside system has worked well for a lot of competitive play previously. The planetary leagues for Mechwarrior 4 are a great example of that, and even with mech restrictions based on what you had available like what the NBT did you could creatively outfit a drop force that was both diverse and effective. Hell the guys I played with we would often drop light if we knew we were more effective in different mechs allowing us to field stuff we're more comfortable with rather than go for sheer weight alone.

And having not played enough with the new tonnage system, I am unwilling to pass judgement on its current implementation beyond not having any real problems with it last night. I resoundingly got my butt kicked several times, but also had a few clear good matches in the line up. The sample size is drastically small though to see if it was a successful setup.

[Mystere]

PharmEcis, on 21 October 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

Personally, I'm a fan of the new group tonnage limits. It adds a lot of flexibility to the drop decks although the assault pilots don't seem to be too happy about it as they have to convince several people to drop pretty light to get their assaults. The whole point of the tonnage limits was to decrease search time to help the MM out. It absolutely accomplished it's goals. We were getting drops as a 12 man in seconds, I think the longest we had to wait was 2 minutes.

Hallelujah!

PharmEcis, on 21 October 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

However, yesterday my unit and I intentionally wanted to try and break the group queue by dropping with insane drop decks. 10x BJ1X + 2 Cheetahs. 8x TDR 5SS + 4 Cheetahs. 10x SCR + 2 BJ's. We were hoping to break our match win time of 1:41 but alas it didn't happen. When we dropped with a bunch of Dragons we got face rolled but it was awesome to hear all the dakka dakka... lol

There is a ton of crying about the new system. I think the new system would be perfect with the addition of one simple mechanic to it. Limit the number of duplicate chassis. Make it impossible to load up a deck with the same chassis / variant. We had some discussion in our unit about this and the consensus was that there needs to be a hard coded rule for groups that you can't have more than TWO or THREE of the same chassis. This will still allow people to pick what they want but will prevent gaming the system like we did yesterday.

I think this will keep the MM and us the player base happy with search times AND it will prevent all the crying and whining from the player base about stacked drops.

I think you are seriously underestimating the whining capabilities of this player base.

PharmEcis, on 21 October 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

To be honest, it really wouldn't have mattered what we dropped in yesterday, we still would have done well.

Precisely. The whining is directly proportional to the amout of butthurt going around. Or ...

PharmEcis, on 21 October 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

*edit* I do want to add that I sincerely hope that PGI NEVER limits the number of people in the group queue. That is just horrible. This is a team game. Please please please before you feel the need to do that, please try this implementation to see how it fairs. I can almost guarantee that this is the end all solution to the problems we have faced.

I have a very huge suspicion the current loud whining is a concerted effort to force PGI to do just that. And on the day that happens ... thank the Heavens Fallout 4 is coming.

Edited by Mystere, 21 October 2015 - 09:32 AM.

[Khobai]

Again... the only problem is the stormcrow is overpowered.

balance all the mechs properly and thered be no way to abuse the system.

[Mystere]

BattleBunny, on 21 October 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

I would personally go for a duplicate limit of 2. So only 2 crows allowed, 2 timbers, etc. Diversity on the battlefield!

JC Daxion, on 21 October 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

I like the idea of limits on mech types.. And i agree, i do like the idea of this, but it still needs work, and limiting the number of varaints would be a nice first step. At least in the specific groups, it think it would make it to hard if different groups end up getting mixed together as you can't know what others have.

And yet the best armies try to standardize.

Edited by Mystere, 21 October 2015 - 09:32 AM.